IN RELATION TO THE LAW OF
CONTRABAND OF WAR AND
BLOCKADE UNDER THE ORDER
IN COUNCIL OF 11TH MARCH 1915
BY
SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT
LATE CHIEF JUSTICE OF HONG KONG
Reprinted, by permission, from
The Nineteenth Century and After
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON PRESS, LTD.
AT ST. PAUL’S HOUSE, WARWICK SQUARE, E.C.
1915
[Pg v]
These articles appeared this year in the April,August, and September numbers of The NineteenthCentury and After, and I have to thank the Editorfor allowing me to reprint them so soon after publication.They are a justification of the much-attackedOrder in Council of 11th March, 1915.
In reply to the German submarine menacethe British Government resorted, by way of Reprisals,to a method of strangling the enemy’scommerce which, on the one hand, was widerin its scope than any list of contraband, and, onthe other, was free from the ‘legal niceties’ whichsurround a declaration of blockade. Neutralmerchants declared that it hit them hard, andthe Government of the United States protestedthat it exceeded the limits which internationallaw has placed to the right of a belligerent tointerfere with neutral trade. The British Governmentreplied justifying its action, and there,one would imagine, the matter should haverested for arbitration after the War. But theGovernment of the United States has continuedits protests, has indeed just renewed them in most[Pg vi]vigorous language, desiring to deflect us, in theinterests of its commerce, from a course whichmust materially assist in crushing our enemy.
It is not customary, except in one clear case, fora neutral Government to insist that a belligerentshould adopt, in medias res, its views of a questionwhich does not involve any issue of peace or war:to press on him, in medium bellum, a modificationof his belligerent action which might cost himthe victory. The clear case of exception is when,philosophy at fault, there are not two sides tothe question, but one only, and that testified toby flagrant breaches of the laws of humanity andwar. Everything else is fair fighting; and fora neutral Government, because its own commercialinterests are affected, to insist on the adoptionof its view of a debateable point, to persist thatit is not debateable, to take action, in itself aviolation of international law,[1] savours of unneutralservice. In the absence of suggestion of anythingbut perfect good faith, in the face of muchdemonstrated care of the interests of its citizens,the abandonment by a neutral Government ofthe dispassionate attitude which neutrality requiresnot merely heartens the enemy but mustresult in rendering him material assistance.
The United States Government, by placingEngland and Germany on the same plane of protest,—the‘lawless conduct’ of the belligerents—has,[Pg vii]as it seems to me, lost the true measure of nationalright and wrong on which humanity must rest itslaws if civilisatio